Bill Pierce
Well-known
A lot of the new lenses that are released are huge - and expensive and amazingly popular. They have large maximum apertures and size increases tied to focusing motors and designs that deal with the relatively thick cover glass on sensors. While one of the full frame, mirrorless bodies I use is conventionally sized, I have a 40/1.4 lens with dimensions of 3 1/2 inches wide and just over 5 inches long, a 90mm macro at over 3 by 5 inches and a 135/1.8 at 3 1/2 inches wide and 5 inches long that I use on it. And, yes, they are not only big, but they are heavy. They are all excellent lenses, but the size and weight limit the when, where and how they are used - not exactly the first choice for the street, the trip or the family and friends get together.
I know they won’t get me a round of applause at the camera club (rather small and unimpressive in appearance), but I also have a 24/2.8, 40/2.5 and 65/2 auto focus lenses, With today’s sensors those lenses, which have excellent wide open performance, can easily handle low levels of existing light. The previously mention 40/1.4 and 135/1.8 are almost always used wide open, not because the light level is low, but because I want to isolate and separate people from their backgrounds by throwing the background out of focus. And that giant 90 - it’s a macro. The three little lenses and a camera body fit in a small bag that’s easy to carry everywhere - and also has my wallet, cell phone, glasses and extra battery. No, there isn’t a 105 or 135. I cheat and crop the 65.
There is one other way to keep size down - use “manual focus” lenses. Yes, if you took pictures long ago in the 20th century, you probably remember those lenses that had rings you had to turn to make the image sharp and “in focus.” Without focus motors some of those lenses were quite small. Leica rangefinder cameras still use those lenses, although the $8,000 plus price a 35/2 aspherical limits the number of folks with first hand experience. There are, however, a number of manual focus lenses made by Chinese firms like Laowa, Vitrox, Meilke, Mitakon, TT Artisan and 7 Artisans that provide manual focus lens at much lower prices and in some cases with unique specifications. At a medium price point you have firms like Zeiss (Loxia) and Voigtlander (Apo-Lanthar) providing a range of lenses of exceptional quality with maximum apertures between 2 and 2.8. Actually, if you are scale focusing, prefocusing or just shooting the great numbest of subjects that don’t demand instant or continuous focus, you might notice that some those primitive 20th century photographers did a pretty good job even though they had to turn the focusing ring themselves. And some of those lenses, like the Loxia and Apo-Lanthar are among the best. Small and good - that’s not bad.
I’m a little worried, because much of what I see on the web seems to be promoting the most expensive lenses without discussing the alternatives, alternatives that in many cases because of size are actually better choices in the usefulness department even though they cost less. Your thoughts? What are you doing?
I know they won’t get me a round of applause at the camera club (rather small and unimpressive in appearance), but I also have a 24/2.8, 40/2.5 and 65/2 auto focus lenses, With today’s sensors those lenses, which have excellent wide open performance, can easily handle low levels of existing light. The previously mention 40/1.4 and 135/1.8 are almost always used wide open, not because the light level is low, but because I want to isolate and separate people from their backgrounds by throwing the background out of focus. And that giant 90 - it’s a macro. The three little lenses and a camera body fit in a small bag that’s easy to carry everywhere - and also has my wallet, cell phone, glasses and extra battery. No, there isn’t a 105 or 135. I cheat and crop the 65.
There is one other way to keep size down - use “manual focus” lenses. Yes, if you took pictures long ago in the 20th century, you probably remember those lenses that had rings you had to turn to make the image sharp and “in focus.” Without focus motors some of those lenses were quite small. Leica rangefinder cameras still use those lenses, although the $8,000 plus price a 35/2 aspherical limits the number of folks with first hand experience. There are, however, a number of manual focus lenses made by Chinese firms like Laowa, Vitrox, Meilke, Mitakon, TT Artisan and 7 Artisans that provide manual focus lens at much lower prices and in some cases with unique specifications. At a medium price point you have firms like Zeiss (Loxia) and Voigtlander (Apo-Lanthar) providing a range of lenses of exceptional quality with maximum apertures between 2 and 2.8. Actually, if you are scale focusing, prefocusing or just shooting the great numbest of subjects that don’t demand instant or continuous focus, you might notice that some those primitive 20th century photographers did a pretty good job even though they had to turn the focusing ring themselves. And some of those lenses, like the Loxia and Apo-Lanthar are among the best. Small and good - that’s not bad.
I’m a little worried, because much of what I see on the web seems to be promoting the most expensive lenses without discussing the alternatives, alternatives that in many cases because of size are actually better choices in the usefulness department even though they cost less. Your thoughts? What are you doing?
